Do state-of-nature thought experiments (choose either Hobbes or Rousseau’s ideas about the state of nature) have any implications for our understanding of international relations? Does the actual conduct of international relations support or undermine any particular understanding of the state of nature (Rousseau or Hobbes)?
The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the implications of descriptions of the state of nature for international relations.
Instructions
Read the assigned chapters of Hobbes' Leviathan or Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality and The State of War, depending on who you choose to discuss.
Do some research on the interpretations of these works. Remember, however, that this research is only supposed to help you understand their texts, not to substitute for reading them; and remember also that scholars differ in their interpretations.
Select a thesis, and place it in the introduction of your essay. E.g., Rousseaus' ideas about the state of nature and human evolution away from it imply that international relations are in a constant state of war and that conflict cannot be eliminated.
Briefly describe either Rousseau's or Hobbes' views on the state of nature, how we get out of it, and any implications they draw for international relations: what do they say about interstate war and the state of nature? Is war "natural"?
Consider more fully the implications of these views: if war is natural, is there any way within Hobbes' (or Rousseau's) theory to eliminate it? If it is unnatural, are there ways of eliminating it? Do their ideas about the state of nature suggest that conflict is inevitable in the state of nature? Do they suggest any mechanisms for eliminating it?
Critically assess these views. Should we accept Rousseau's (or Hobbes') view of the state of nature, and the conclusions they draw for international relations? Are any of their assumptions wrong? What would be an accurate assumption if so?
Lewis, Thomas J. 2003. Recognizing rights: Hobbes on the authority of mothers and conquerors. Canadian Journal of Political Science 36 (1):39-60. Link.
Abstract. This article follows Hobbes’s distinction between man as the artificer of a commonwealth and man as the material of the commonwealth, by exploring the meaning of natural right and consent from the perspective of an artificer or potential sovereign. From this perspective, natural rights are transformed from alleged attributes of humans into decisions by a victor in war to treat the defeated as if they had natural rights. Similarly, consent is transformed from actions of subjects or citizens into a decision by a victor to recognize the defeated as if they had a right to consent and to treat them as if they had consented. Moreover, Hobbes’s concept of a commonwealth by institution is understood as a definitional standard for the creation of commonwealths by force or acquisition, rather than as a possible historical event. Hobbes sought to explain and substantiate this view of natural right and consent by comparing the emergence of political authority from victory in war to the emergence of authority of a mother over her infant in a state of nature. According to Hobbes, just as maternal authority rests on a mother’s recognition of the right of her infant to consent, political authority rests on the victor’s recognition of the right of the defeated to consent. The practical policy thrust of Hobbes’s thought emerges from his comparison of the authority of mothers and conquerors. Comments: A useful discussion of the notion of "consent" in Hobbes. Suggests that consent must be understood as an attitude the ruler takes towards the subjects, not so much as a specific action that the subjects take authorizing the ruler.
Ashcraft, Richard (1971). Hobbes's Natural Man: A Study in Ideology Formation. Journal of Politics 33 (4): pp. 1076-1117. Link.
This article shows how Hobbes' use of the concept of the "state of nature" overturned the common presuppositions of political philosophy at the time Leviathan was published. It suggests that Hobbes managed to redefine what "natural" meant by drawing, among other things, on reports of native life in the Americas. Very clearly written.
This book is a very careful reconstruction of Hobbes's argument using the tools of modern game theory. Hampton argues that Hobbes's argument, though powerful, is ultimately flawed - either inconsistent with his psychology or consistent with his psychology but unable to establish the necessity of an absolute sovereign. An excerpt from the book is reprinted in The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.
Gauthier criticizes Hampton, arguing that she does not take seriously enough the idea of a social contract, and hence too quickly dismisses Hobbes's argument. Hampton replies here.
Gauthier, David (1969). The Logic of Leviathan: The Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes (Oxford: Oxford University Press).LinkLibrary Catalog.
Cranston, Maurice William. 1972. Hobbes and Rousseau: A Collection of Critical Essays. 1st ed. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Books. Library catalog.
Patrick Riley (1973). "Rousseau as a Theorist of National and International Federalism." Publius, Vol. 3, No. 1., pp. 5-17. Link.
Plattner, M. F. (1979). Rousseau's State of Nature: An Interpretation of the Discourse on Inequality (p. 137). Northern Illinois University Press.
Most books I found on Rousseau are either on Rousseau on general, with little information on his Discourse on Inequality or they are more about his Social Contract. This book is specific on Rousseau's State of Nature, which I found very handy, although it is quite detailed and I recommand the last 2 chapters.
Table of Contents
The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the implications of descriptions of the state of nature for international relations.
Instructions
Resources
- Lewis, Thomas J. 2003. Recognizing rights: Hobbes on the authority of mothers and conquerors. Canadian Journal of Political Science 36 (1):39-60. Link.
Abstract. This article follows Hobbes’s distinction between man as the artificer of a commonwealth and man as the material of the commonwealth, by exploring the meaning of natural right and consent from the perspective of an artificer or potential sovereign. From this perspective, natural rights are transformed from alleged attributes of humans into decisions by a victor in war to treat the defeated as if they had natural rights. Similarly, consent is transformed from actions of subjects or citizens into a decision by a victor to recognize the defeated as if they had a right to consent and to treat them as if they had consented. Moreover, Hobbes’s concept of a commonwealth by institution is understood as a definitional standard for the creation of commonwealths by force or acquisition, rather than as a possible historical event. Hobbes sought to explain and substantiate this view of natural right and consent by comparing the emergence of political authority from victory in war to the emergence of authority of a mother over her infant in a state of nature. According to Hobbes, just as maternal authority rests on a mother’s recognition of the right of her infant to consent, political authority rests on the victor’s recognition of the right of the defeated to consent. The practical policy thrust of Hobbes’s thought emerges from his comparison of the authority of mothers and conquerors.Comments: A useful discussion of the notion of "consent" in Hobbes. Suggests that consent must be understood as an attitude the ruler takes towards the subjects, not so much as a specific action that the subjects take authorizing the ruler.
- Ashcraft, Richard (1971). Hobbes's Natural Man: A Study in Ideology Formation. Journal of Politics 33 (4): pp. 1076-1117. Link.
This article shows how Hobbes' use of the concept of the "state of nature" overturned the common presuppositions of political philosophy at the time Leviathan was published. It suggests that Hobbes managed to redefine what "natural" meant by drawing, among other things, on reports of native life in the Americas. Very clearly written.- Hampton, Jean (1986). Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
This book is a very careful reconstruction of Hobbes's argument using the tools of modern game theory. Hampton argues that Hobbes's argument, though powerful, is ultimately flawed - either inconsistent with his psychology or consistent with his psychology but unable to establish the necessity of an absolute sovereign. An excerpt from the book is reprinted in The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.- Gauthier, David (1999). Hobbes's Social Contract. Originally appeared in Nous 22 (1988), pp. 71-82. Reprinted in The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999), pp. 59-71. Link.
Gauthier criticizes Hampton, arguing that she does not take seriously enough the idea of a social contract, and hence too quickly dismisses Hobbes's argument. Hampton replies here.- Plattner, M. F. (1979). Rousseau's State of Nature: An Interpretation of the Discourse on Inequality (p. 137). Northern Illinois University Press.
Most books I found on Rousseau are either on Rousseau on general, with little information on his Discourse on Inequality or they are more about his Social Contract. This book is specific on Rousseau's State of Nature, which I found very handy, although it is quite detailed and I recommand the last 2 chapters.